1. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef Member

    If the effect is due to released elastic energy in steel which is about 50 J/kg then if all the elastic strain energy is converted to kinetic energy we simply have

    K.E. = 1/2Mv^2, or mass specific kinetic energy = 1/2 v^2 = 50 J/kg

    Therefore the maximum ejection velocity of a steel section is 10 m/s and it can reach a maximum distance of about 92m.
  2. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    You wrote 60 mph in a few yards. Chandler's measurements are crap... That's been established beyond a shadow of a doubt.... as is his understanding of building structure. [...]

    The facade peeled and toppled. There is no other explanation. You can't explode 40 panels off the tower without them breaking apart ... that is pure hooey.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    OK. Now its time for me to ask you produce evidence of your claim that he is in error. If its been 'established beyond a shadow of doubt' then it will take you less than five minutes to produce that work won't it.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But who is suggesting it's due to released elastic energy?
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why not? What's the maximum speed that can be achieved by toppling? More importantly, what is the theoretical maximum horizontal distance something can travel under the toppling hypothesis?

    I've got some ideas for a demonstration of the mechanism, maybe later.

    Oh, and I think this "massive steel beams" is a key way of explaining AE911's lack of actual credibility to people. Why don't they see the flaws in their argument?
  6. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Can someone confirm this for me - that steel can store a max. elastic strain energy of 50 J/kg? I am slightly surprised that strain enegy is proportional to mass (and thus to volume), not depth or area or something <3D, but that may well be merely my non-expert intuition failing me here.

    "Bouncing" is elastic impact, isn't it? Your experiment doesn't permanently deform any of the involved steel parts, so you basically have fully elastic bounces, but I very much doubt that this would scale to multi-ton panels falling hundreds of feet - the reason being the limit strain steel can take. With energy lost to plastic deformation upon impact, the bounce will be less.
  7. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    A few months ago, I posted a detailed calculation to estimate the mass of high explosives needed to propel an object (a piece of steel) to 60 mph - a velocity claimed by Dr. Griscom, a truther and physics professor. First the link to that post:

    I figured that it would take significantly more than 10 kg of explosives for each 1000 kg of steel to reach thiose 60 mph.

    And here copy&paste the calculation:

    (Important note: I overestimated the mass of the wall panels - instead of 30 tons, it should be about 6-7.5 tons for panels above the 78th floor., That would reduce the 400 kg estimate to 80-100 kg)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Even if sufficient energy can be produced how much is wasted?

    How much of the energy from the explosion acts on the area of the projected beam exposed to the blast?

    How is the blast focussed to ensure a sufficient portion of the available energy does impact on the beam?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    I assume that @Jeffrey Orling has been unable to justify his wild accusation that Chandlers velocity calculations were, in his words, 'crap'. Verification of Chandlers result has been confirmed by Dr Griscom and appears to have been accepted.

    Much effort has been expended by @drommelsboef and @Oystein to demonstrate that such velocities and distances ejected are impossible, absent huge explosions and noise. As if that proves that what has been observed, recorded, and measured, didn't happen because their calculations say so.

    @Mick West says, - " What's the maximum speed that can be achieved by toppling? More importantly, what is the theoretical maximum horizontal distance something can travel under the toppling hypothesis?". A valid question.

    If experimentaion or calculations shows that a simple toppling under gravity - possibly enhanced by a combination of elastic steel and 'bouncing' effects - cannot enable large steel sections to achieve the velocities and lateral distances as calculated and observed, then some other force input needs to be considered.
    Last edited: May 23, 2015
  10. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Get your burden of proof round the right way. You are claiming Chandler as an authority for that specific measurement. Your burden of proof to prove the velocity. And - if you want to use Chandler as an authority - you have to prove that he made that measurement and that his work is valid.

    The related issue of context is that most of us here - including Jeffrey O - are aware of multiple examples of Chandler's range of work which are untruthful and show his incompetence OR dishonesty. THEREFORE if you want to claim he is right on the one specific issue you face a greater difficulty persuading us.

    And you still need to disprove "bowling"/toppling.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Seems like it would have lot to do with the 'springiness' of the beam and impacted body.
  12. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Wrong in so many ways. I merely answered a request to provide some evidence to support a comment I made. I made no claim that Chandler was an authority on that subject. Having supplied that evidence as requested I was met by an intemperate bare assertion that Chandlers' work was 'crap'. ( Has the politeness policy been abandoned in here in my absence )

    Asking him to back that wild claim up was quite valid, and still is, as he has so far failed to do that. Your own input is an attempt to allow him to evade that responsibility. As it happens, @Oystein provided confirmation of Chandlers calculations by mentioning that Dr Griscom also reached the same conclusion, so I look forward to @Jeffrey Orling 's own input to refute both of their calculations. I dont have to prove that their work is valid. Others have to show where they are in error.

    You then reveal your real agenda here by alleging prior problems over Chandler's work. As if that in any way invalidates these particular calculations. Someone can be wrong multiple times but that doesnt automatically mean that another calculation is also wrong. Critical thinking skills fail there. Get his data checked. And if its wrong I would be the first to accept that. On the other hand, if he ( and Griscom ) are right then you need to face up to the implications.

    And I have no need to disprove anything here. We need much more information first. And @Mick West had some valid questions that need to be examined first.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Has anyone ever suggested a mechanism where an explosion might hurl a 20 ton wall section 250 feet, but not hurl smaller debris tens of miles?
    • Like Like x 4
  14. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Air resistance. Though you're certainly right that we could expect to see progressively finer debris the further away from the explosion you went.
  15. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    Isn't part of the CD theory that the concrete was reduced to talcum particle size powdered dust in the explosions that ejected steel. And wasn't that what we saw. Dust clouds. But you are right of course. There had to be some ejecta that was larger than talcum powder and smaller than steel sections. Possibly too small to be seen and measured on the videos from a mile away though. Certainly much rubble as you suggest was seen spread all over NY that day.
  16. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I've never quantified it myself nor seen it validly quantified by others. Hence my recent comments responding to Oystein's post.

    The usual presumption and inference of truther claims is that explosives can project large steel beams.

    I have commented many times on several forums that it is well nigh impossible to project heavy steel beams using explosives in the WTC setting. The big problem is that there is nothing to focus, contain and concentrate the blast to allow it time to accelerate a large beam.

    The problem is worse with HE than it is with "lower" explosives such as ANFO or black powder. ANFO used in quarrying often will project a large rock to a distance BUT it starts in a mass of dirt lifted by the ANFO and momentum allows the rock to continue. The initial "launch" using the mass of earth/rock/debris as a focussing container till the momentum is achieved.

    A gun barrel is the obvious focussing container and works with black powder or other propellants. HE in a gun barrel would shatter the barrel BEFORE the momentum transfer could be achieved.

    There is no such "containment mechanism" in the WTC scenarios. And postulating that one was set-up merely adds additional layers of improbable complexity to CD claims. When both the bowling and the bouncing/skittering mechanisms achieve the effect of apparent throwing to the distances which occurred.

    And the "rock in a mass of dirt" goes against your "smaller debris goes miles". Yes metal splinters do go for great distances from HE cutting of steel. When I did my Military Engineering demolition course the demo range was under one of the approach paths for Sydney Airport. From memory at the 7000feet "step" in the descent pattern. That approach was closed to air traffic whilst steel cutting was being conducted.

    "Splinters" from HE cutting of steel can go to distance but dust and dirt from LE quarry blasting do not go as far as those occasional entrained rocks. Air resistance versus moving weight being the limitation.
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm talking about things like nuts and bolts, or even chunks of concrete, rebar, the more solid contents of the office, like statues, etc. Air resistance is not going to do much to that over a mile or so.

    Lots of dust was, but let's do some ballpark math here. An explosion moves things by pushing them with expanding gases, the force that those expanding gasses are going to impart is proportional to the surface area. The acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass. Mass is proportional to the cube of a linear dimension. Cross section is proportional to the square.

    So let's take two similar shaped objects, like a wall section, and a metal splice plate, or a slab of marble. one is (say, just ballparking here) 30 feet long, and the other is 3 feet long. So the large object is 10 times as long, so it has 100x as much cross sectional area, so gets 100x as much force from the explosion.

    However it's got 1,000x the mass. So if it has 100x the force, but 1000x the mass, then acceleration is going to be 1/10th the amount for the larger object, or 10x the amount for the smaller.

    So if the "explosion" is shooting a 30 foot steel section 200 feet, it should be shooting 3 feet steel sections 2,000 feet.

    And it should be shooting 3" pieces of steel 24,000 feet (4.5 miles)

    Backing up a little, that 30 foot long section, travelled about 250 feet, let's say it fell 800 feet, that's about 7 seconds. So it also travelled 250 feet in 7 seconds, hence the ejection speed was about 24 mph.

    So, if an "explosion" can accelerate a 30 foot long section to 24 mph, it will accelerate a 3 foot section to 240 mph, and a 3" section to 2,880 mph.

    And there must have been many thousands, if not millions of pieces in the WTC that were under 3", and hence many of these pieces would have been accelerated (initially) to speeds in excess of 3,000 mph. Hence if there was such an explosion then the surrounding buildings would be perforated like swiss cheese on both sides, as these lumps of steel ripped through them literally like cannonballs.

    But we didn't see anything like this. We didn't find thousands of 3" or smaller sized pieces of debris five miles from the site, we didn't hear a series of incredibly loud explosions (as if a 3" piece of steel is going faster than the speed of sound, then the air is going MUCH faster, so a loud bang is an inevitable consequence of this "explosive ejections of large steel sections" theory), there's no evidence such an explosion took place, and very compelling evidence (you might even consider it 100% proof) that there was no such explosion.

    At yet for years this has been a centerpiece of AE911's hypothesis.
    (notice they up things to 600 feet, and 60 mph, which of course just makes things far worse).

    Anyone who has looked at this for long enough should know that AE911's list of "key evidence" is specious, meaningless, or just flat wrong. But they are supposed to be engineers (or at least architects), and simple math like F = ma, and "time to fall" should not be too complicated for them, at least for some of them.

    So why have they got it wrong for so long? Why allow this nonsense to stand on the front page? What does this say about the membership, and the leadership, of AE911?

    It says that they don't really understand the science.

    They are not doing math, they are not doing engineering, they are just pointing at things that look amazing to them, things that they don't understand. The building fell rapidly, there was a lot of dust, some adjacent buildings were struck by falling debris hundreds of feet away.

    "How is this possible?", they ask. And they ask because they don't know. Because they can't, or they won't, just do the math.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And just to be clear how deeply AE911 has bought into this theory, have a look at this video (which is linked from their "Key Evidence" list)
    • Like Like x 1
  19. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Similar thinking to mine Mick - at the size scale of nuts and bolts where my experience identifies "splinters" or "shards"

    My own version of "ball park maths" tries to reconcile the expanding sphere of gas from an explosion applying pressure to the face of the beam oriented towards the expanding gas.

    The energy of the expanding gas - unconstrained - will be uniformly distributed around the sphere. And the face of the beam taking the pressure will be a very small portion of that sphere. Therefore a very small portion of the energy getting applied to accelerating the beam.

    Last edited: May 23, 2015
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You can see a practical example here:

    The heavy rear loader only goes a few feet, but other pieces are shot hundreds of feet in the air, and there must be smaller pieces that are not visible that go further:
  21. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    they don't have to do the math, because in the words of their chairman, Dan Barnum

    They "knew"

    Dan “knew” at the outset that something was fishy about 9/11, because both of the buildings collapsed suddenly, and in the same manner.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Good point Mick: The safety distance in the UK for cutting metal on the demolition range is 1000m.

    Why were the surrounded people, buildings and vehicles near to 'Ground Zero' not peppered with fragmentation from these steel-cutting charges?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    The response(s) to this in the linked thread - a train wreck.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    Why would the controlled demolition start at the top of the buildings anyway

    Isn't it more usual to start at the bottom, making better use of gravity etc
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    Might attract some unwanted attention.
    • Funny Funny x 3
  26. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Yes - true.

    In addition that's one of the concepts we get wrong - both "sides".

    If there was demolition assistance to the collapses there is no reason it needed to be "controlled" in the normal meaning applied to such activities. i.e. preventing collateral damage OR limiting the spread of debris.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    They were. But not from C4 or similar. In fact the whole NY area was. Billions of iron rich microspheres as discussed eleswhere.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  28. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I'm confused now. The 'explosions' were powerful enough to 'eject' large frame steelworks away from the building weighing several tons, but there was no fragmentation of any sort that weighed several grams, yet micro-particles of another sort were liberally distributed?

    How does that demolition emit some metal debris that is heavy, yet retain the smaller, fragmentation sized parts?
    Last edited: May 24, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    But you don't know that such fragments were retained. I would suspect that the area around was liberally sprinkled with smaller fragments. Very tiny particles, such as iron rich microspheres, would blow outwards and upwards. Larger particles would blow outwards and downwards. But you know this. Its physics. So why do you suggest that they would be retained? The videos display that quite well after all.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The distribution of micro-sized particles in determined almost entirely by air movement. That is not the topic here.

    We are talking about the "ejection" of multi-ton steel sections (which ended up over 200 feet horizontally from where they started, falling maybe 800 feet), and what might have caused that.

    AE911 suggest it was caused by explosions, but the lack of smaller sections traveling much faster and much longer distances proves that is could not have been.

    If you want to disagree, then please point out the error in the physics discussed above.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    What force, what energy was there? E=mgh was there, sitting, and when the top failed, it was released over the collapse, ejecting material as would happen due to collisions.

    The energy in each tower released was equal in energy to 137 2,000 pound bombs; in each tower. I ask myself, is 576,210,000,000 joules enough to do what we saw; and the answer is yes. Simple physics, no fancy presentation of nonsense by fake experts; simple physics, E=mgh, the energy releases on 911 due to massive fires in a building with failed fire systems, and destroyed insulation due to aircraft impacts.

    Simple physics, E=mgh, a number calculated with simple math. More than enough energy is available, and proved by what was seen on 911.

    How big a silent explosives was used in 911 truth's inside job scenario? What is the size of the silent explosives needed for the fantasy version of ejections, where bad guys loaded fireproof silent explosives in the WTC without detection.

    Now what amount of energy is required to eject the material you think can't be ejected in a gravity collapse. How many joules do we need; do you have a number? The WTC has 576,210,000,000 joules from each tower, which destroyed the WTC, gravity did it, fires started it. Ironically, in the controlled demolitions, the majority of energy used to destroy buildings is E=mgh released. Controlled demolitions are gravity collapses, where the energy stored in the building is used to destroy the building, and small amounts of explosives are used to start the collapse.
  32. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    If you cut metal with explosives, it will primary frag like this: PSM_V58_D508_Effects_of_maximite_explosive_fragmentation.

    These will be flying through the air at around 8000 m/sec, which is why we have a safety distance of 1000m when cutting metal on a demolition range.

    These shards, when they strike vehicles or buildings leave strike marks like these: Alcatraz-Grenade-Damage.
    Or this:

    Or this:


    Is there any evidence that vehicles, people or building have been struck by primary frag, from cutting charges on metal, and if not, why has these particular claimed explosions uniquely had either very large or microscopically small fragmentation, and none in between?
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think energy discussion are really relevant here. The problem is more about (relatively) simple physics: force, mass, area, length, velocity, height, distance, friction.

    Adding energy to the discussion is unnecessary, and potentially confusing. And the question "was there enough energy to ...." is a different topic.
  34. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    What is the justification for claiming these sections broke free on only three sides?
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I suspect the answer to this lack of frag is that the "explosions" were a series of carefully placed thin layers of a novel top secret form of nano-thermite that just burnt very rapidly, but not too rapidly.

    But of course this explanation would be unacceptable here, as it does not explain "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally."
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And why is that even relevant? Large sections fell, and travelled 200 feet. That they did it somewhat unevenly speaks only to some asymmetry in the mechanism, it does not disqualify either hypothesized mechanism. The lack of inch-sized debris miles away disqualifies the explosion hypothesis.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Well that was where my line of enquiry was going. If it was thermite, what caused the larger columns to seemingly 'eject' from the buildings, and if it was cutting charges, why the amazingly discriminate sizes of the frag...?

    They cannot have both arguments, and claim they both 'fell in its own footprint', whilst simultaneously 'ejected' massive columns hundreds of feet away.
  38. Hitstirrer

    Hitstirrer Active Member

    I think that came about as a result tof the 'toppling' theory to explain how large sections manage to move sideways rather than downwards under gravity. Its imagined that they break away laterally, and at the top, but the base remains fixed to provide a hinge. The then unstable section topples over to one side around that hinge to enable large sections to be observed travelling sideways and fall many feet away from the base. Without that hinge the toppling theory becomes untenable.
  39. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    If I stand a two by four upright and let it fall over, it topples because its base is bound gravitationally to the ground. A physical connection is not required.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think anyone has suggested the bottom of the building as a hinge. There would be multiple pivot points as collapse progressed. The hypothesis being that interior floors were stripped away, and the walls just peeled away at that point.
    The red dots here indicate the pivot points of different sections.

    Of course it was not a simple process, the wall mostly cam apart at the joins, but then there were also some very big sections that pivoted away.
    • Agree Agree x 1